Two-thirds of investors to be bypassed with min bid amounts

Just a guess but presumably customer services becomes a lot cheaper to run when you have fewer customers....

I think its a good thing, if anyone has sold on the secondary market and had £25 or £50 bought its a joke, too much admin, minimums should apply though I think about £200 should be a starting point

Too much admin for whom?
Nobody is making you pay attention to the small amounts for sale so that's irrelevant. There are plenty of people in the world who feel that £200 isn't worth logging in for, yet for you that is about the right starting point. Personally, I feel about the same, but I appreciate the flexibility that I currently make use of which ranges from ~£100 for loans where I feel its worth a punt simply to diversify, ranging up to £3k which is my single max exposure.

My point is that FS making repeated changes without prior communication or apparent consideration of the impacts doesn't feel right. This change was made mid-funding of the loan even, that clearly implies this wasn't something planned in advance.

On Abl or AC, for example, one can trade as little or as much as they want and their SM's work well. Does it really take a lot of admin time to sell in small increments?

I find this comment (the bit I’ve highlighted) a bit unbelievable what evidence is it based on? What’s this, a May moment, blame the investors why don’t you? P2P started out with Zopa in the UK and a concept of social lending – match lenders to borrowers through an on-line platform and win win win - platform profits, borrowers get lower rates than through traditional financial institutions and investors get better rates. Whilst the social element has virtually evaporated, and the sector has moved on in other ways, I don’t see that it should be aiming to exclude retail investors, turn into a 'nanny state', or to be the preserve of the rich investor.

I don’t invest on FS and have no axe to grind with them at all, I am using them (because you posted on their board) as an example which could equally apply to other P2P Platforms.

FS started off with pawn loans I believe and no doubt welcomed and encouraged as many investors as it could get, and as BH’s have stated here and on other platforms £25 bids aren’t worth getting out of bed for, it’s a good job there were a few minnows investing or the Platform wouldn’t have got established. I believe it’s performance on communicating (generally) with investors and some of its pawn loans has been pretty atrocious so maybe that’s a source of all the ‘minnows’ complaints? Probably not an issue for BH’s and underwriters who seem to get privileged information from the platforms. Assuming FS isn’t a fly by night P2P set up, out for a quick buck, and it’s in it for the long term then surely it needs to develop systems and strategies to deal with any complaints it gets, which should include communication, ‘education’, and performance, but not in my opinion trying to exclude some investors. In addition, I am sure there must also be techniques in any company environment for dealing with ‘difficult’ customers, who I bet come in all sorts. I see a lot in the sector to complain about and in my view it’s a good thing because it needs to be held 'to account', and has and is slowly improving the sector as a whole.

On a personal note I’m a vanilla minnow retail investor, but I certainly don’t meet your stereotype I’ve only ever telephoned one platform and that was AC concerning their 2FA – I didn’t submit a formal complaint though. I have contacted a fair few about mistakes and issues with my account, as I should have done if I wanted the correct interest amount paid or deposits traced etc. So, should I be excluded from P2P lending, or should platforms be encouraged to make their lending and businesses more suitable for all?

Having been around here long enough I’d also say there are a fair few self-proclaimed BH’s who take whinging to a whole new level, and even threaten the volunteer forum ‘staff’ with litigation, let alone the platforms, it certainly doesn’t seem to be the preserve of retail minnows to me.

I will be happy to sell my share in small lots (for a small premium  )  when loans fill.

It's based on conversations with a number of platforms, that is what they say.  I'm sorry but I don't have documented evidence of calls by investment size.  It's also the reason the likes of BC have £5k minimum investment per loan. 

If you think I sound like Theresa May then I feel I'm within my rights to say you sound like Jeremy Corbyn, "for the many not the few".  It's capitalism, not some sort of social enterprise.  It's not relevant how P2P (or FS) started out, it's a business and everyone is in it to make money;  lenders, borrowers and the platforms.  FS has recently changed ownership and he wants to go in a different direction and that's his call.  FS is clearly not a platform for inexperienced, small retail investors and this is a step in that direction (in fact I wouldn't be surprised if the FCA eventually brings in minimum investment sizes for self select loans)

I find this comment (the bit I’ve highlighted) a bit unbelievable what evidence is it based on?

Twist it how you like but I haven't set any stereotype.  I said it's the smallest investors who complain the most, that does not mean that all small investors are constantly kicking up a fuss.  As with most things the small vocal minority to cause the greatest waves.